Over 0–100 km/h, Q3 SUV wins (6,99 s vs 8,31 s).
Performance comparison
Simulated drag race 0 → 1,000 m in real time. Synchronised speed counters and stopwatch. Physics calibration on 7 manufacturer measurements.
Simulation
Calibration
Physics model calibrated on manufacturer splits. The limited top speed is not the real aerodynamic top speed of the vehicles.
| Q3 SUV | Terramar | |
|---|---|---|
| 0–100 km/h | 6,99 s−1,32 s | 8,31 s |
| 400 m standing start | 15,30 s−0,95 s | 16,25 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,39 s−1,02 s | 29,41 s |
| Top speed (electronically limited) | 229 km/h+15 km/h | 214 km/h |
| Power-to-weight ratio | 8,14 kg/hpbetter ratio | 9,00 kg/hp |
Standing-start drag race, calibrated on manufacturer splits. The gap shows at each stage.
Simulated performance at each stage. Winner in green.
| Palier | Q3 SUV | Terramar |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30 km/h | 1,51 s | 2,27 s |
| 0–50 km/h | 2,54 s | 3,44 s |
| 0–80 km/h | 4,85 s | 6,00 s |
| 0–100 km/h | 6,99 s | 8,31 s |
| 0–120 km/h | 10,04 s | 11,46 s |
| 0–160 km/h | 20,12 s | 20,91 s |
| 0–200 km/h | 36,49 s | 45,12 s |
| 400 m standing start | 15,30 s | 16,25 s |
| 1,000 m standing start | 28,39 s | 29,41 s |
| Top speed | 229 km/h | 214 km/h |
Manufacturer technical specifications. The power-to-weight ratio is the key physical factor in a drag race.
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 204 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 320 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 660 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Integrale (AWD) | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed S tronic |
| Characteristic | Value | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 201 hp | Pending |
| Torque | 300 Nm | |
| Weight | 1 810 kg | manufacturer kerb weight |
| Drivetrain | Traction | |
| Gearbox | 7-speed DSG |
Off the line, the Q3 SUV hits 100 km/h in 6.99 s versus 8.31 s for the Terramar. Despite lacking instant torque, 204 hp of power compensates. At this point, the Q3 SUV leads by 1.32 s and sits roughly 22 m ahead.
At 200 metres, the Q3 SUV is doing 119 km/h against 116 km/h for the Terramar. The gap is 0.95 s. The challenger starts to claw back ground.
At 400 metres standing start, the Q3 SUV crosses the line in 15.30 s versus 16.25 s. The 0.95 s gap represents roughly 37 m of track - a gap visible to the naked eye.
Past 400 metres, the Q3 SUV continues to build its lead. At 600 metres, it runs at 160 km/h versus 160 km/h. At 1,000 metres, the Q3 SUV finishes in 28.39 s versus 29.41 s, with a 1.02 s lead.
The Q3 SUV features all-wheel drive (AWD) against the Terramar’s FWD. At low speeds (0-30, 0-50, 0-80 km/h), AWD doubles the driven contact area: all four wheels transmit torque to the road, virtually eliminating wheelspin at launch. This traction advantage is decisive in the range where the motor delivers peak torque, before power and aerodynamics take over.
Electronically capped at 229 km/h, the Q3 SUV never reaches its natural aerodynamic ceiling in this duel. That’s not a physical limit of the motor - it’s a deliberate manufacturer decision, typically tied to standard-fit tyre ratings or model-range positioning.
Instant electric torque gives an advantage off the line. The higher top speed of the combustion engine gives an advantage over longer distances. The distance at which one catches the other depends on the top speed differential.
In European road use (130 km/h max), both vehicles reach the legal speed limit in under 13.30 seconds. The 1.32 s difference in 0 to 100 km/h is mostly felt in motorway merging and overtaking.
Over 0–100 km/h, Q3 SUV wins (6,99 s vs 8,31 s).
Q3 SUV goes from 0 to 100 km/h in 6,99 seconds (calibrated simulation).
Q3 SUV: 204 hp, ratio 8,14 kg/hp. Terramar: 201 hp, ratio 9,00 kg/hp.
Q3 SUV: 229 km/h. Terramar: 214 km/h.